Maybe Tina Brown was literarily spoofed by someone wanting her to appear the demented love child of Andrew Sullivan and Rachel Maddow:

The idea of losing Hillary has seemed especially unbearable at this political moment. Itâ(TM)s as if she has become, literally, the ship of state. She stands for maturity, tenacity, and self-discipline at a time when everyone else in Washington seems to be, in more senses than one, going off a cliffâ"a parade of bickering, blustering, small-balled hacks bollixing up the nationâ(TM)s business. Sheâ(TM)s a caring executive too, and that takes its own emotional toll. What a disgrace that John Bolton and his goaty Republican ilk accused Her Magnificence of inventing a concussion to get out of testifying at the Benghazi hearings. Bolton is not fit to wipe her floor with his mustache.

This blog must double down on its unwavering stance regarding the physical condition of this storied civil servant:

May Secretary of State Clinton receive better treatment than Ambassador Stevens, Smith, Woods or Doherty. #Benghazi

But aren't you trying to spare our country from the socialist hell-hole that you are utterly convinced Obama will unilaterally unleash upon us any day now? How could you possibly wait? Isn't Hillary Clinton a key component of the vast conspiracy to use Benghazi to cover up the vast and obvious socialist fascist anarchist muslim atheist capitalist takeover of everything that you have ever known?

Isn't Hillary Clinton a key component of the vast conspiracy to use Benghazi to cover up the vast and obvious socialist fascist anarchist muslim atheist capitalist takeover of everything that you have ever known?

You think I'm impressed by that kind of limited hangout [wikipedia.org]? I totally know that Benghazi was really a beachhead for the invading aliens from Planet Bugglethwiddy, and Hillary is really the Maximum Ungeheuer of Planet B, hell-bent on turning planet Earth into a vast avocado ranch, with full, if chattel,

Now that the Hobby Lobby decision has come down, there is no way to stop Obama becoming a dictator. It is clear that Congress and SCOTUS are just rubber stamp organizations to the Executive at this point.

Now that the Hobby Lobby decision has come down, there is no way to stop Obama becoming a dictator.

Sure, because providing insurance that includes contraception coverage is really exactly the same thing as providing abortions in your place of business in spite of your beliefs, right? It is abundantly clear how this ruling on providing employees with an option will lead to the decay of all the division of governmental power in this country and ultimately an unchecked executive.

Politician: Vote for me, I'll provide universal insurance!Voter: Yeah, I had a $50 dollar tax bill, a $100 dollar checkup, and the State covered $10.Politician: But I kept my promise!

Of course, I pulled those numbers from the air, but here is the principle: having the government do anything always costs more, every time, without fail, full stop.
You're welcome to shout all the invective you want, but that's Just. The. Way. It. Is. [amazon.com]

I wish there was a politician who I could have voted for in 2012 who was promising universal insurance. Since the health insurance bailout act Obama has made no such promise and I'm not aware of any congress people (fed or state level) who have made that promise for my area either.

Voter: Yeah, I had a $50 dollar tax bill, a $100 dollar checkup, and the State covered $10.

You do realize how insurance works in this country, right? Because what you just described is close to how the for-profits pay out. Generally an HMO (or whatever you call your health plan) will pay ~10-30% of the cost that y

The Hobby Lobby Decision has ramifications that has NOTHING to do with health care or even freedom of religion or contraception.

Basically, the Hobby Lobby Decision is precedent for the executive branch enacting a bureaucratic rule that has force of law, that affects private individuals in the public sphere, without consent of congress or the courts. The HHS Mandate goes beyond the written law of Obamacare, and therefore, is a new law in and of itself. It is just a tax, and therefore the courts will not in

The Hobby Lobby Decision has ramifications that has NOTHING to do with health care or even freedom of religion or contraception.

Not really. It may, in the future, but it is a minority ruling, in that pretty much every other challenge on religious grounds has been upheld so far. And there's simply no way, in the end, it won't be upheld. This ruling will be overturned easily. There's two undeniable factors here, that are sufficient for victory:

* You do not lose your religious freedom just because you're operating a business* This law is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest while respecting religious free

Wow, another Pudge drive-by? How exciting! I am still intrigued by how Pudge would eternally ban the likes of myself from discussions and yet come and inject himself into an existing discussion that I am involved in without seeming to have the least bit of regard for the rank hypocrisy of such an action. I can't help but wonder how long Pudge might stick around this time and make baseless accusations of lying before leaving. Apparently since you can't perma-ban people by sticking them on your eternal ha

Wow, another Pudge drive-by? How exciting! I am still intrigued by how Pudge would eternally ban the likes of myself from discussions and yet come and inject himself into an existing discussion that I am involved in without seeming to have the least bit of regard for the rank hypocrisy of such an action.

Perhaps I should not be, but I am a bit surprised that you do not understand what "hypocrisy" means. For there to be hypocrisy, I'd have to be engaging in or promoting ideas or behavior that I, in some way, opposed.

Hope that helps!

Do males at or above the age of 18 have the constitutional right not to be forced to sign up for selective service?

Yes.

Do employers have the constitutional right to work their employees for arbitrarily long hours for no pay?

Of course not. That's my point. You can't force people to do anything, which includes forcing employees to work (whether for pay, or not).

Again, perhaps I should not be, but I am always surprised when you work so hard to make my case for me, while appearing to think you're

For there to be hypocrisy, I'd have to be engaging in or promoting ideas or behavior that I, in some way, opposed.

You oppose the exchange of opinions, and yet here you come to voice your own. You oppose people asking questions, and here you come to ask questions. You oppose answering questions, and here you come seeking others to answer your questions.

In other words, you are a hypocrite.

Do males at or above the age of 18 have the constitutional right not to be forced to sign up for selective service?

Yes

So are you opposed to selective service or are you not aware of the consequences of not signing up for it?

You appear to think that it makes sense to say that if we cannot use force against others, then employers cannot be forced to not use force on their employees.

Even for you, that is a bizarre conclusion to draw.

All work must be mutually agreed to in a free country: the employee must volunteer his services, and the employer must volunteer payment in return. That's absolutely required.

Except that the labor market in the united states in its current config

You oppose the exchange of opinions... You oppose people asking questions... You oppose answering questions

You're a liar. There is no sense in which any of that is true. I have spent more time exchanging opinions, and asking and answering questions, with people I disagree with than most people, including yourself. You're just making things up, as usual.

What I explicitly oppose is dishonest or abusive discussions, that prevent reasonable exchange of opinions, and asking and answering of questions. Hence...

So are you opposed to selective service or are you not aware of the consequences of not signing up for it?

I recognize the fact that the requirement to sign up for Selective Service is unconstitutional, regardle

I have spent more time exchanging opinions, and asking and answering questions, with people I disagree with than most people, including yourself.

You have answered such an abysmally small fraction of all the questions I have asked you that it would be nearly fair to say you do not answer questions from me at all. When I ask you questions your standard M.O. is to instead accuse me of lying and then not answer the question in any way, shape, or form.

I would ask you why you are lying about answering questions from people such as myself, but there is no reason to expect that you would actually answe

You have answered such an abysmally small fraction of all the questions I have asked you that it would be nearly fair to say you do not answer questions from me at all.

It's "fair" to lie? That explains a lot.

When I ask you questions your standard M.O. is to instead accuse me of lying and then not answer the question in any way, shape, or form.

You're a liar. I do no such thing. I do accuse you of lying -- because, as you said above, you (thinking it is fair) lie a lot -- but I always answer reasonable questions, and most questions are reasonable. I defy you to show a single example of a reasonable question you asked me, that I did not answer.

And keep in mind that it is not reasonable to ask an apparently reasonable question, while dodging other points. For example, if you say I am wrong that 2+2=4, and

You have answered such an abysmally small fraction of all the questions I have asked you that it would be nearly fair to say you do not answer questions from me at all.

It's "fair" to lie? That explains a lot.

It's not a lie, it's an approximation. I have asked you many questions and you have answered approximately none of them. Perhaps your lack of understanding of basic math is part of why you suck so atrociously at logic.

When I ask you questions your standard M.O. is to instead accuse me of lying and then not answer the question in any way, shape, or form.

You're a liar.

This new meaning of liar that you use, please define it.

I do accuse you of lying -- because, as you said above, you (thinking it is fair) lie a lot

I said no such thing. Just because you claim otherwise does not make it so.

but I always answer reasonable questions, and most questions are reasonable

I challenge you to show a question that was asked of you which was not in agreement with your worldview which you deemed to be sufficiently "reasonable" to

I have asked you many questions and you have answered approximately none of them.

You're a liar.

The list of questions that I have asked you which you have chosen not to answer is dramatically longer than the list of questions I have asked you which you have chosen to answer.

Just because you see it has not fitting your own sense of reality does not make it a lie.

I defy you to show a single example of a reasonable question you asked me, that I did not answer.
I have asked you many reasonable questions, including the one that you originally placed me on your perma-hate list for, which you have never answered.

You realize that anyone reading this will note the fact that you refuse to give even a single example, and take it as proof that you are as much of a liar as I say, right?

First off, wrong. Second off, why would we expect that anyone else would be reading this at this point? They would have likely seen that you very quickly jumped in to your usual pattern of question avoidance and baseless allegations, and

If someone else was reading this far into this discussion they likely are aware of the questions I have asked you before that you have chosen not to answer...

... even though you have given NO examples? Huh.

Wow, you are so self-righteous that you are now claiming to be an expert on what I have or have not seen.

I know you have seen discussions you have taken part in. I know that I have had many discussions with people who disagree with me, asking and answering reasonable questions, and that you have been involved in some of them.

This isn't self-righteousness, it's simple deduction.

I stated that I have not seen something, and you are now insisting that I have.

Correct. Because you have. You might not recall it, for various reasons, or due to your myopia you may not have recognized it for what it was. But you've seen it, regardless.

Wow, what a surprise. You decided not to answer a question I asked you.

I know that I have had many discussions with people who disagree with me, asking and answering reasonable questions, and that you have been involved in some of them.

If such a discussion happened, then it should not be difficult for you to provide an example of such a discussion. However you cannot provide an example of such a discussion because none ever happened. You could have likely spent less time finding an example than the amount of time you have spent repeating your baseless assertions, but you chose the latter anyways because you knew you could not fulfill the former.

This isn't self-righteousness, it's simple deduction.

No, it is not. If that deduction was based on actual events that actually happened, you co

If such a discussion happened, then it should not be difficult for you to provide an example of such a discussion.

Again, with your wonderful examples of hypocrisy. You refuse to provide any examples anywhere of me not answering a reasonable question, and now you demand I provide examples to you?

You do realize, of course, that given your hypocritical refusal, your request here counts as "unreasonable," right?

... I refer you back to what I already said, which already proved you wrong.

You're a liar. You did no such thing. The weird thing is that you are claiming you proved me wrong, when as best I can tell, you didn't even try to do so. You never provided evidence or argument of any kind. Y

You know as a guy who took 30+ years to marry and 40+ to become a father, I've just never been able to detect signals like that.
My thought is that my good Lefty interlocutors are simply trolling. Which is fine. Having perpetrated Burma Shave trolls on odd Tuesdays these years, I can hardly complain. I will confess some boredom when we get to the "make the rubble bounce" phase, and my sources, facts, motives, alphabet, and very reasoning capacity itself starts to get demolished.
It's hard to play in the san